169 réponses à ce sujet

[LobselVith8]

I'm a bit confused as to how they didn't come across as victims to you. They hate humans, sure, but the humans are far worse to them. They have reason to be mad at the humans, but the humans have no reason to hate them.

 

Because despite Duncan pointing out how most humans don't even see the elves as people, we see a variety of humans at the forefront of the storyline, while the same isn't true about the Dalish.

 

We also have certain facts relegated to written text that can easily be missed, like the King's Law in Ferelden that prohibits someone from defending an elf against a human attacker, or how the chevaliers kill elves as part of their initiation rite not being brought up in Inquisition. Lavellan can't even mention how the Chantry outlawed the elven religion when he's criticizing the Chantry.

 

The elves in DA2 attack you due to the fact that they think that the Keeper was murdered by a pariah and her human accomplice. Is it so unreasonable that they would try to kill such assassins on sight?

 

The Sabrae Clan hunters attempt to murder Hawke and Merrill unless they are coddled, and let's consider that absolutely no dialogue even suggests that Merrill or Hawke killed Marethari in cold blood. It's completely unreasonable.

 

One way that the Dalish were definately not balanced out in DAO was in their handling of mages. They are apparently able to have a bunch of mages and there aren't any negative consequences (which I'm sure was good for all the pro-mage players, but removes any chance of difficult choices when dealing with the Circle, because mage freedom would be a fairly obvious choice). The three mage rule allows for some complexity there, just like with the Circles and the Qun. It makes the point that you can just have a whole bunch of free mages out there clear.

 

Merrill already mentioned that the clan hunts down an elven mage who becomes an abomination, so it isn't as though it was perfect. Making the Dalish have the same views as the Chantry of Andraste on mages isn't balance, it's disregarding the Dalish having their own unique approach and cultural view to mages and magic simply to justify the Chantry controlled Circles. It's blatantly invalidating the Dalish clans as a viable alternative to what the Chantry preaches about mages and magic.

[Addai]

One way that the Dalish were definately not balanced out in DAO was in their handling of mages. They are apparently able to have a bunch of mages and there aren't any negative consequences (which I'm sure was good for all the pro-mage players, but removes any chance of difficult choices when dealing with the Circle, because mage freedom would be a fairly obvious choice). The three mage rule allows for some complexity there, just like with the Circles and the Qun. It makes the point that you can just have a whole bunch of free mages out there clear.

Making the Dalish into mini-Circles isn't complexity, it's illogic. That isn't good lore development.

[Catche Jagger]

Because despite Duncan pointing out how most humans don't even see the elves as people, we see a variety of humans at the forefront of the storyline, while the same isn't true about the Dalish.

 

We also have certain facts relegated to written text that can easily be missed, like the King's Law in Ferelden that prohibits someone from defending an elf against a human attacker, or how the chevaliers kill elves as part of their initiation rite not being brought up in Inquisition. Lavellan can't even mention how the Chantry outlawed the elven religion when he's criticizing the Chantry.

 

 

The Sabrae Clan hunters attempt to murder Hawke and Merrill unless they are coddled, and let's consider that absolutely no dialogue even suggests that Merrill or Hawke killed Marethari in cold blood. It's completely unreasonable.

 

 

Merrill already mentioned that the clan hunts down an elven mage who becomes an abomination, so it isn't as though it was perfect. Making the Dalish have the same views as the Chantry of Andraste on mages isn't balance, it's disregarding the Dalish having their own unique approach and cultural view to mages and magic simply to justify the Chantry controlled Circles. It's blatantly invalidating the Dalish clans as a viable alternative to what the Chantry preaches about mages and magic.

 

But these things do exist and they were written into the game and are a part of the lore and the world. It doesn't matter how hard it is to find the information, what matters is that it is there in the game. This information exists and shows the Dalish as victims once again. Your argument that this information is irrelevant brecause it's only in the codex doesn't make any sense. The information is at least as valuable as that which is found in the tie-in novels.

 

Why wouldn't they think a blood mage pariah and her human friend had killed their beloved Keeper in cold blood? They want revenge for the death of the Keeper and aren't likely to believe the stories of a blood mage and her friend (who is happens to be a human, just as an added bonus). From their perspective, the attack makes perfect sense.

 

That's not what an alternative is. An example of an alternative would be that having Circle mages is an alternative form of mage control to having Saarebas. Letting mages have free reign is not an alternative form of mage control, it is an argument against mage control. Now the Dalish have been given their own system of mage control, which is let the mages have free reign, but keep numbers small.

[IanPolaris]

The problem is the developers seem to want to win an argument and convince of of things, not by appealing to our logic or emotions, but rather by changing the lore itself to fit what they want to prove.

 

I don't respect that and I find it difficult to suspend my disbelief when playing in a world where the lore seems to be written in pencil.

[Catche Jagger]

Making the Dalish into mini-Circles isn't complexity, it's illogic. That isn't good lore development.

 

That would not be a mini-circle. The mages are not under the constant supervision of some outside force, and are given a massive amount of freedom when compared to Circle mages. All it is doing is showing that the Dalish do have some sort of mage control (though it's more so mage population control). Wanting to see your past restored does not change the fact that it's dangerous to have too many mages around without something to counteract them, at least in the current age.

[Addai]

That would not be a mini-circle. The mages are not under the constant supervision of some outside force, and are given a massive amount of freedom when compared to Circle mages. All it is doing is showing that the Dalish do have some sort of mage control (though it's more so mage population control). Wanting to see your past restored does not change the fact that it's dangerous to have too many mages around without something to counteract them, at least in the current age.

It's worse than the Circles, actually, since you're putting children out into the wilds to die.

As you said, it was introduced to even the score between the Dalish and Andrastians on mage freedom. Not an organic development.

[Catche Jagger]

It's worse than the Circles, actually, since you're putting children out into the wilds to die.

As you said, it was introduced to even the score between the Dalish and Andrastians on mage freedom. Not an organic development.

Yeah, it's probably worse. Though those mages who are left in the clan have a much freer life than Circle mages.

 

I didn't find it to be too inorganic,  mostly because I felt that the Daish being able to just have mages around without issue seemed unrealistic when portrayed alongside the rest of the groups of Thedas (Andrastians have the Circles, Qunari have the Sarrebas, Tevinter is filled with blood magic, but the elves are perfectly fine). The limited number explains why the Dalish can handle mages the way they do without major repercussions.

 

Also, having an even score is not vilifying a group, which was my main argument.

[EmissaryofLies]

Well, I already commented on how the Dalish mage situation was not balanced. The Chantry is indirectly portrayed as being wrong about mages since the Dalish are able to have several free mages without issue. Next, if several clans were stated to be little more than thugs, what's wrong with showing those clans that are negative examples? You've just claimed that bad clans existed back in DAO so why do you take issue with such clans appearing in DAI and TME?

It's not that the Dalish have several free mages without issue is that they can transfer an excessive amount to other clans; they do not cast them out to fend for themselves. Merrill can account for this. What's wrong is that we already have examples of grey morality among the Dalish with the clans in Origins and DA II. Both clans have good and bad elements, you can easily form a positive or negative opinion about both. Whereas in TME and DAI, they are portrayed as completely malicious or ignorant of their past to a harmful degree, it paints them in an almost entirely negative light. Your companions and the entire narrative shits all over them; DAI and TME do not seem to want players to form more than one particular opinion of them.
 

Well, an outsider from a race of people who have historically hated the Dalish and the former First who had to leave the clan due to use of blood magic sagy the Keeper was possessed. Why shouldn't the clan trust them? Them blaming Hawke and Merrill for the death of the Keeper and seeking out revenge for the presumed act is very understandable. It isn't like they would go and start massacring the people in Kirkwall afterward to repay what the clan had lost. That would have been an unreasonable portrayal of the Dalish.

 
They didn't even properly investigate; they stood outside the cave and hurled accusations. That would be bad enough, but the option wheel in dialogue is deceptive in that it is very easy to pick the 'wrong' one and be forced to wipe them out. "I'll take responsibility" is the correct option. Yet in that context it appears to be an admission of guilt. It's careless of the writers. That's not to mention that Hawke can help the Dalish out on several occasions, with the Templars, Darkspawn, and Varterral for instance. So it can be more than just an unfamiliar outsider. Ineria who represented most of the clan's opinions of Merrill, was barely held back by Fenarel. No trial, no investigation, straight to execution if you don't guess the magic number.
 

Yes, I know that Zathrian is an example of gray morality, but in the first game, he's probably the worst we saw out of the Dalish whereas among the human characters we had such straightforwardly evil characters as Howe. When the worst person is a fairly sympathetic character, then the Dalish are being given a positive portrayal.

I do not agree with that. What of Cailan, Duncan, Mother Hannah, Greagoir, and Alistair, to name a few? The humans are given a ton of room for interpretation and glowing beacons of light. The Dalish are given Zathrian and the rest of his clan. They are given a fair portrayal, some good and some bad.
 

Except it really didn't. They needed the Dalish mages issue to be altered to make the mage/templar issue not so one-sided. The three mages rule made it clear that everyone has difficulty when it comes to dealing with mages and there are no easy answers.

 
It did; they were one dimensional villains in TME and they are fools who were wrong about nearly everything under the sun in Inquisition.

They did not need the Dalish Mage issue when you also consider that some clans mysteriously disappear and the entirety of Merrill'sstory in DA II, which can suggest how some of these clans 'go missing'. That is to say that they have problems of their own without being retconned into throwing their spare mages to the wolves.

[TK514]

I suspect you guys are really going to hate future installments of Dragon Age if you react this badly to the starting clarifications from Inquisition.

[In Exile]

Making the Dalish into mini-Circles isn't complexity,
it's illogic. That isn't good lore development.

Like I said up thread, though, even if the Dalish did to a fault and with out exception abandon children they'd still be on the Mount Everest of Moral Highground compared to the Circles. The forced tranquility if you lack talent and the mandatory Harrowing is by itself worse IMO. Throw in the imprisonment, the fact that their children are stripped away, the Circles where there are beatings and rapes ...

The Circles are horrid, Vivienne's privileged defence notwithstanding.

[Vit246]

I didn't find it to be too inorganic,  mostly because I felt that the Daish being able to just have mages around without issue seemed unrealistic when portrayed alongside the rest of the groups of Thedas (Andrastians have the Circles, Qunari have the Sarrebas, Tevinter is filled with blood magic, but the elves are perfectly fine). The limited number explains why the Dalish can handle mages the way they do without major repercussions.

 

Also, having an even score is not vilifying a group, which was my main argument.

 

Unrealistic? I disagree.

The rest of the groups you're talking about. They tend to treat their mages badly and inhumanely. And as for Tevinter, technically they have no issues with their mages (since their mage society has been existing and functional for thousands of years). And part of the reason is their fundamentally different culture and attitude to mages.

 

The elves are not "perfectly" fine (since they too have their abominations) but they are fine with their mages because they raise and treat their mages with compassion and respect. In turn, their mages have little incentive to turn "bad" and a lot of incentives to maintain their good positions and remain in the good graces of their communities.

 

Perhaps "the rest of the groups of Thedas" have something to learn from the Dalish. Or even Rivain, come to think of it.

[TK514]

"The people who create the lore go to great lengths to make sue we know how unlikable and unreasonable the Dalish are, so they must be awesome."

If that's the case, Orlais and Tevinter must be the greatest places in Thedas, Kirkwall must be transcendently magnificent, and the Circles must be spectacular places to live.

[Ashagar]

From the new lore The only different between the ancient Tevinter Imperium and the ancient elven empire was one was made and ruled by elves while the other was created by men though that honestly doesn't surprise me.

 

They were both ruled by dreamers and were filled with slaves and both had gods that answered their prayers other than the maker who was a ancient tevinter, proto-tevinter deity credited with creating the world but otherwise absent having left.

[Cainhurst Crow]

It's out of character because for a group of people who's entire culture revolves around preserving relics from a time when everyone was a Mage, discarding mages is stupid, they should be breeding mages like pure bred dogs if anything.

Also they are all happy chappy loveley doveley with eachother so chucking their kids out into the forrest to die is also out of character.

 

Lovely sentiment, until a pride possessed mage tears the entire clan, women and children included, apart. Quite literally.

[IanPolaris]

Lovely sentiment, until a pride possessed mage tears the entire clan, women and children included, apart. Quite literally.

 

If the danger were that great, then no civilization in Thedas would have survived past the stone-age.

[Cainhurst Crow]

If the danger were that great, then no civilization in Thedas would have survived past the stone-age.

 

Well, in tevinter there are ways of dealing with mages. Hell, the entire circle system was spawned from mages based loosely off how old tevinter handled mages. I am sure the avvar shamans have their own ways of dealing with mages, probably similar tot he system the dalish use without the chance of the child surviving, if only due to the nature of the frostback mountains.

 

That is all also assuming that the fade and the residents of the fade always functioned as they do today. It could be very possible that the fade changed many thousands of years ago, and with it, the threat of possession became a major issue.

[IanPolaris]

Well, in tevinter there are ways of dealing with mages. Hell, the entire circle system was spawned from mages based loosely off how old tevinter handled mages. I am sure the avvar shamans have their own ways of dealing with mages, probably similar tot he system the dalish use without the chance of the child surviving, if only due to the nature of the frostback mountains.

 

That is all also assuming that the fade and the residents of the fade always functioned as they do today. It could be very possible that the fade changed many thousands of years ago, and with it, the threat of possession became a major issue.

 

The point is there are ways that permit mages to live alongside mundanes and DON'T doom that culture to destruction by abomination.  This is why the Dalish were retconned....to make the Templars and Circle system look better.

[Gervaise]

Would also point out that the majority of the clans are not mages and even allowing for children and older elves, a good proportion are very able adults who have been trained to defend themselves for all manner of danger whether wild animals or human threats and are generally armed at all times.    This is a rather different situation to the majority of human villagers or alienage elves, who the nobles would want to ensure were not particularly able to stand up for themselves - I believe it is illegal for a city elf to possess a blade longer than a knife and highly likely a similar rule applies to human peasants, at least in Orlais but probably elsewhere too.

 

So unlike the stories we have of human villagers being decimated by an uncontrolled mage child turning into an abomination, for the most part I'm sure the Dalish are able to deal with any accidental abominations should they occur.   However, unless the child is actively dabbling in blood magic (like the teenager in DAI) they are also less likely to be in danger of possession than a human child since they are valued and cherished (at least under the old lore) rather than held in superstitious fear.   There is a clear link between the state of mind of the mage and the danger of possession.   

 

The reason the clan in ME were so easily destroyed was because Imshael wasn't just any old demon, but one of the ancient Forbidden ones.     When Hawke asks Merrill if Dalish mages are ever possessed, she agrees that it does happen and then the clan is forced to hunt its own Keeper down and kill them.    This suggests that not only are they able to cope with the odd possessed mage but they are responsible enough to go after them so they do not harm anyone else.   

 

The Dalish were never an alternative to the Circles simply because the Chantry controlled human culture viewed mages in an entirely different way and in any case the numbers involved were far greater, so the argument that the writers needed to balance things out just doesn't wash.    The Dalish believe that all their ancestors were magical and the Keepers are closest to what a true elf should be.   It is inconceivable that they would reject anyone from their clan simply for being a mage, much less leave a 7 year old child to die.      I'm just glad I'm not the only person who can see this.

[Cainhurst Crow]

The point is there are ways that permit mages to live alongside mundanes and DON'T doom that culture to destruction by abomination.  This is why the Dalish were retconned....to make the Templars and Circle system look better.

 

No, it was to stop the dalish from being the mary sues they had been written as. "Oh look at us, we can have our entire clan be mages and not a single one ever has to worry about temptation, jealously, anger, fear, or other issues that make us susceptible to dmeons. Aren't we all just sparklingly perfect desu!"

 

Give me a break with that crap. The dalish system was not nor was it ever going to be perfect, just like everything else in this series. Being mad over a flaw in the dalish system, a drawback, being added to them that doesn't clash with previously established lore regarding them is childish at best.

[Cainhurst Crow]

 

The reason the clan in ME were so easily destroyed was because Imshael wasn't just any old demon, but one of the ancient Forbidden ones.     When Hawke asks Merrill if Dalish mages are ever possessed, she agrees that it does happen and then the clan is forced to hunt its own Keeper down and kill them.    This suggests that not only are they able to cope with the odd possessed mage but they are responsible enough to go after them so they do not harm anyone else.   

 

Nothing about that statement suggest that they'd be any good at hunting down and successfully killing an abomination, nor does it suggest that the casualties resulting from this abomination would not still be large if not only for the clan but for anywhere else with people the abomination might go to.

 

Skilled warriors they may be, but a powerful enough beast fueled by magic can easily take care of warriors far more skilled then the elves.

 

[Addai]

No, it was to stop the dalish from being the mary sues they had been written as. "Oh look at us, we can have our entire clan be mages and not a single one ever has to worry about temptation, jealously, anger, fear, or other issues that make us susceptible to dmeons. Aren't we all just sparklingly perfect desu!"

 

Give me a break with that crap. The dalish system was not nor was it ever going to be perfect, just like everything else in this series. Being mad over a flaw in the dalish system, a drawback, being added to them that doesn't clash with previously established lore regarding them is childish at best.

The Dalish were never written that way so your argument is moot.

[Patchwork]

But these things do exist and they were written into the game and are a part of the lore and the world. It doesn't matter how hard it is to find the information, what matters is that it is there in the game. This information exists and shows the Dalish as victims once again. Your argument that this information is irrelevant brecause it's only in the codex doesn't make any sense. The information is at least as valuable as that which is found in the tie-in novels.

 

 

There's a huge difference between information that's prominent like Andrastian/human apologists and rarely heard ambient dialogue and codex entries. The stuff everyone learns just by playing the game and talking to your people is what the game considers important for you to know.

 

In DAI it's important that you know that the dalish kicked a child out of the clan and left her to wander the woods alone, a mage child which makes her becoming an abomination very likely. They want you to know the dalish were wrong in their account of the Fall of the Dales, what they actually believe isn't important enough to mention only that it's wrong. They want you to know that awakened ancient elves don't consider modern elves worth helping. They want you to kill your clan and not care.

[Cainhurst Crow]

The Dalish were never written that way so your argument is moot.

 

They kinda were. Like, really not well done if people think the only reason the dalish way of doing things wasn't the norm was human racism.

[KaiserShep]

Oh my god, you character-assassinated the Dalish.

 

You bastards!

 

I can't help but feel that the Dalish were sort of always the whipping boy faction of the DAverse. If any group is always seemingly on the verge of being totally annihilated, it's these guys. But I couldn't have that. Dragon Age just isn't Dragon Age without some ornery guy in green armor telling my shemlen that they're not welcome.